Re: epoll_ctl and const correctness

[nicolas sitbon <nicolas.sitbon@gmail.com>]

Please, can anyone answer me, I need a response.

2009/3/25 nicolas sitbon <nicolas.sitbon@gmail.com>:
> You don't teach me anything, I know that, the fact is the
> documentation is incomplete, so rather saying that, please answer my
> questions. For the moment, only the documenation and the prototype of
> epoll are buggy.
>
> 2009/3/25 Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org>:
>> nicolas sitbon wrote:
>>>
>>> valgrind confirms this
>>> behaviour, so am I wrong?
>>
>> That doesn't prove very much.  Unlike usermode code, Valgrind doesn't
>> instrument the kernel, so it computes the side-effects of kernel operations
>> by parsing the syscall stream and simulating the effect.  (That is to say,
>> it strengthens your argument somewhat, but valgrind's handling of this
>> syscall could be buggy.)
>>
>>>  or the good prototype is
>>>
>>> int epoll_ctl(int epfd, int op, int fd, struct epoll_event const *event);
>>>
>>
>> Putting "const" first is conventional.
>>
>>   J
>>
>